Democrats' prize carries peril

Party must be careful not to overreach

November 05, 2008|By Naftali Bendavid, Tribune correspondent

The Democrats on Tuesday night clinched the ultimate prize for an American political party, emphatically capturing the White House and seizing both chambers of Congress with majorities not seen in years.

It will be tempting, perhaps inevitable, for party leaders to claim a broad mandate. Democratic visions of universal health care, consumer protections and sweeping environmental laws have been downplayed and often ridiculed for years, and with voters behind them they will be eager to plunge ahead.

The danger for Democrats, however, is that they may overreach, interpreting what is, in part at least, simply a public disenchantment with Republicans as a green light to charge forward with ideas that may prove controversial and could quickly dissipate their newfound power.

"There will be a lot of pressure on President Obama to try to fulfill some of that more liberal agenda," said Leon Panetta, who was White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. He added, "I think that when Americans voted for change, they did not vote for change from one extreme to the other. They voted for working together to solve problems."

The decisive vote, coupled with a political climate that seems highly conducive to change, could provide Democrats with a rare opportunity to enact a wide-ranging agenda if they move quickly, carefully and deftly.

Yet overreaching has been the pattern for parties that capture broad power in Washington. And the circumstances of this victory could enhance the Democrats' motivation to use their power aggressively.

The party recaptured the presidency for the first time since a disputed 2000 election that many Democrats still feel was stolen from them. Congress is eager to flex its muscles after eight years of chafing under President George W. Bush, who expanded his authority at Congress' expense.

Democrats are surging just four years after many analysts wrote them off after Bush's re-election. On top of that, the crisis in the financial system has created a public mood that is friendlier to regulation and government action than at any time in the past three decades.

Democrats, for their part, argue that the times call for dramatic action.

"There is going to be a sense of urgency, not just because we won, but because 2 million homes are about to go into foreclosure," Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) said Tuesday night. "We have to move fairly quickly. When you are losing your home and your 401(k), there is a sense of urgency on the part of the American people."

Journalists and others can be prone to overinterpret elections, seizing on explanations that suggest a seismic shift. With key states and demographic groups clearly going the Democrats' way Tuesday, some were already speaking of a major political realignment and the end of the conservative ascendancy that began with Ronald Reagan.

Democrats will be only too happy to accept such views. And Barack Obama's soaring rhetoric, promising to overthrow an entrenched political culture, will encourage many to see Tuesday's election as the kickoff to a massive shift in American politics.

Only rarely in recent decades has a party won broad control of Washington. When Bill Clinton won in 1992 while the Democrats held Congress, he sought to push through broad health reforms, and his party soon lost Congress.

When President Bush was re-elected in 2004 and the GOP expanded its Senate and House majorities, Bush pushed a partial privatization of Social Security, and his party, too, quickly lost Congress.

In addition to the temptation of going too far, parties in total control of the capital often find themselves blamed for anything that goes wrong, even events largely beyond their control.

If the Democrats are to avoid overreaching, it will require their leaders to diligently build public, bipartisan support for their initiatives. Democratic constituencies, from the anti-war movement to unions, will be eager for big changes, and the temptation to ram initiatives down the Republicans' throats could be great.

It's a temptation that should be avoided, Hare said. "We need to give [Republicans] the opportunity to weigh in on these things," he added. "I don't think the Democrats have a corner on wisdom."

During the campaign, Obama repeatedly outlined his intent to withdraw from Iraq, expand health coverage and shift the tax burden from the middle class to those making more than $250,000 a year. With his victory, he can plausibly claim significant support for those policies.

Michael Genovese, a political scientist at Loyola Marymount University in California, said the definition of "mandate" is squishy and essentially depends on the ability of the president to convince the public that he has one.

"The consensus of academics is that when you get into office, regardless of the size of the mandate if there is one, you should have a disciplined, streamlined agenda of two or three items at the most," Genovese said. "You concentrate on passing those, thereby sending a message that you can win."

Obama may be helped by what appears to be a temperate, measured personality. He may be helped, too, by two old Chicago friends. Sen. Dick Durbin is the second-ranking Senate Democrat, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel is the fourth-ranking House Democrat.

Both are shrewd operators who understand the limits of what is possible in Congress -- even in a time of euphoria and triumphalism.